scholarly journals Proper Evaluation of Bone Loss Determines Shoulder Instability Indications and Outcomes

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 785-786
Author(s):  
James H. Lubowitz ◽  
Jefferson C. Brand ◽  
Michael J. Rossi
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Instability

scholarly journals Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Failed Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization With Subcritical Bone Loss

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596712110018
Author(s):  
Emilio Calvo ◽  
Gonzalo Luengo ◽  
Diana Morcillo ◽  
Antonio M. Foruria ◽  
María Valencia
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair ◽  
Functional Scores ◽  
Arthroscopic Latarjet

Background: Limited evidence is available regarding the recommended technique of revision surgery for recurrent shoulder instability. Only 1 previous study has compared the results of soft tissue repair and the Latarjet technique in patients with persistent shoulder instability after primary surgical stabilization. Purpose/Hypothesis: To evaluate the results of revision surgery in patients with previous surgical stabilization failure and subcritical glenoid bone defects, comparing repeated Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Latarjet technique. The hypothesis was that Latarjet would be superior to soft tissue procedures in terms of objective and subjective functional scores, recurrence rates, and range of movement. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were 45 patients (mean age, 29.1 ± 8.9 years) with subcritical bone loss (<15% of articular surface) who had undergone revision anterior shoulder instability repair after failed Bankart repair. Of these, 17 patients had arthroscopic Bankart repair and 28 had arthroscopic Latarjet surgery. Patients were evaluated at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively with the Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and Subjective Shoulder Value. Subluxation or dislocation episodes were considered failures. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between groups in age, sex, sporting activity, preoperative Rowe score, or the presence of hyperlaxity or bony lesions. At revision arthroscopy, 20 shoulders showed a persistent Bankart lesion, 13 a medially healed labrum, and 6 a bony Bankart. In 6 patients, no abnormalities were present that could explain postoperative recurrence. In the Bankart repair group, 7 patients underwent isolated Bankart procedures; in the remaining 10 cases, a capsular shift was added. No significant differences were found between the Bankart and Latarjet groups in outcome scores, recurrence rate (11.8% vs 17.9%, respectively), or postoperative athletic activity level. The mean loss of passive external rotation at 0° and 90° of abduction was similar between groups. Conclusion: Arthroscopic Latarjet did not lead to superior results compared with repeated Bankart repair in patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss and recurrent anterior shoulder instability after Bankart repair.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Shoulder Stabilization in Females With Glenoid Bone Loss

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596712110075
Author(s):  
Rachel M. Frank ◽  
Hytham S. Salem ◽  
Catherine Richardson ◽  
Michael O’Brien ◽  
Jon M. Newgren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Latarjet Procedure ◽  
Shoulder Stabilization ◽  
Simple Shoulder Test ◽  
Female Patients

Background: Nearly all studies describing shoulder stabilization focus on male patients. Little is known regarding the clinical outcomes of female patients undergoing shoulder stabilization, and even less is understood about females with glenoid bone loss. Purpose: To assess the clinical outcomes of female patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability treated with the Latarjet procedure. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: All cases of female patients who had recurrent anterior shoulder instability with ≥15% anterior glenoid bone loss and underwent the Latarjet procedure were analyzed. Patients were evaluated after a minimum 2-year postoperative period with scores of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form, Simple Shoulder Test, and pain visual analog scale. Results: Of the 22 patients who met our criteria, 5 (22.7%) were lost to follow-up, leaving 17 (77.2%) available for follow-up with a mean ± SD age of 31.7 ± 12.9 years. Among these patients, 16 (94.1%) underwent 1.6 ± 0.73 ipsilateral shoulder operations (range, 1-3) before undergoing the Latarjet procedure. Preoperative indications for surgery included recurrent instability with bone loss in all cases. After a mean follow-up of 40.2 ± 22.9 months, patients experienced significant score improvements in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form, Simple Shoulder Test, and pain visual analog scale ( P < .05 for all). There were 2 reoperations (11.8%). There were no cases of neurovascular injuries or other complications. Conclusion: Female patients with recurrent shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss can be successfully treated with the Latarjet procedure, with outcomes similar to those of male patients in the previously published literature. This information can be used to counsel female patients with recurrent instability with significant anterior glenoid bone loss.

scholarly journals Assessment of bone loss in anterior shoulder instability

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 63-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cory A. Kwong ◽  
Eva M. Gusnowski ◽  
Kelvin K. W. Tam ◽  
Ian K. Y. Lo
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability

scholarly journals Critical Glenoid Bone Loss in Posterior Shoulder Instability

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (12) ◽  
pp. e2
Author(s):  
Christopher Nacca ◽  
Joseph Gil ◽  
Rohit Badida ◽  
Joseph Crisco ◽  
Brett Owens
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Posterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Posterior Shoulder

Recurrent Shoulder Instability: Current Concepts for Evaluation and Management of Glenoid Bone Loss

2010 ◽  
Vol 92 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 133-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
CDR Matthew T Provencher ◽  
Sanjeev Bhatia ◽  
Neil S Ghodadra ◽  
Robert C Grumet ◽  
Bernard R Bach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Recurrent Shoulder Instability

scholarly journals Assessment and Trends in the Methodological Quality of the Top 50 Most Cited Articles in Shoulder Instability

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 232596712096708
Author(s):  
Avinesh Agarwalla ◽  
Kaisen Yao ◽  
Anirudh K. Gowd ◽  
Nirav H. Amin ◽  
J. Martin Leland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Number Of Citations

Background: Citation counts have often been used as a surrogate for the scholarly impact of a particular study, but they do not necessarily correlate with higher-quality investigations. In recent decades, much of the literature regarding shoulder instability is focused on surgical techniques to correct bone loss and prevent recurrence. Purpose: To determine (1) the top 50 most cited articles in shoulder instability and (2) if there is a correlation between the number of citations and level of evidence or methodological quality. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: A literature search was performed on both the Scopus and the Web of Science databases to determine the top 50 most cited articles in shoulder instability between 1985 and 2019. The search terms used included “shoulder instability,” “humeral defect,” and “glenoid bone loss.” Methodological scores were calculated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), Jadad scale, and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score. Results: The mean number of citations and mean citation density were 222.7 ± 123.5 (range, 124-881.5) and 16.0 ± 7.9 (range, 6.9-49.0), respectively. The most common type of study represented was the retrospective case series (evidence level, 4; n = 16; 32%) The overall mean MCMS, Jadad score, and MINORS score were 61.1 ± 10.1, 1.4 ± 0.9, and 16.0 ± 3.0, respectively. There were also no correlations found between mean citations or citation density versus each of the methodological quality scores. Conclusion: The list of top 50 most cited articles in shoulder instability comprised studies with low-level evidence and low methodological quality. Higher-quality study methodology does not appear to be a significant factor in whether studies are frequently cited in the literature.

Reporting of glenoid bone loss measurement in clinical studies and the need for standardization

2022 ◽  
Vol 104-B (1) ◽  
pp. 12-18
Author(s):  
Simon Weil ◽  
Magnus Arnander ◽  
Yemi Pearse ◽  
Duncan Tennent
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Imaging Modality ◽  
Measurement Techniques ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity

Aims The amount of glenoid bone loss is an important factor in deciding between soft-tissue and bony reconstruction when managing anterior shoulder instability. Accurate and reproducible measurement of glenoid bone loss is therefore vital in evaluation of shoulder instability and recommending specific treatment. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the range methods and measurement techniques employed in clinical studies treating glenoid bone loss. Methods A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases was undertaken to cover a ten-year period from February 2011 to February 2021. We identified clinical studies that incorporated bone loss assessment in the methodology as part of the decision-making in the management of patients with anterior shoulder instability. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) were used. Results A total of 5,430 articles were identified from the initial search, of which 82 studies met the final inclusion criteria. A variety of imaging methods were used: three studies did not specify which modality was used, and a further 13 used CT or MRI interchangeably. There was considerable heterogeneity among the studies that specified the technique used to quantify glenoid bone loss. A large proportion of the studies did not specify the technique used. Conclusion This systematic review has identified significant heterogeneity in both the imaging modality and method used to measure glenoid bone loss. The recommendation is that as a minimum for publication, authors should be required to reference the specific measurement technique used. Without this simple standardization, it is impossible to determine whether any published paper should influence clinical practice or should be dismissed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):12–18.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document